The Emergencies Act Committee has repeatedly been asking for transparency and documentation to back-up the Liberals decision to invoke the Emergencies Act with no luck.

Green stated during the meeting “So I’m going to put the question to you directly: What were the economic impacts of the occupation? And were they significant enough to meet the threshold of a threat to national security under Section 2 of the CSIS act?” said Green, referring to CSIS’s definition of threats to national security.

Freeland did not answer directly but honed in on Green’s comment about Canada’s reputation, saying the country’s reputation was key to a strong economy.

“Canada’s reputation as a reliable trading partner, as a reliable investment destination, as a country with peace, order and good government, as a country with stable and effective political institutions, these are some of the most precious things we have as an economy, and they are the foundation for our prosperity.”

Green responded “That’s not the question I asked you,” repeating his previous questions on economic impacts. “I’m not talking about pontification, I’m talking about facts here.”

Freeland replied “I don’t believe I’m pontificating”, “The economic impact was absolutely, clearly there.”

I would like to start off by questioning Miss Lucky commissioner of the RCMP. Miss Lucky Do you acknowledge and agree that the RCMP is independent of the federal government and is free to investigate without influence? Yes. Has the RCMP ever been influenced and or deterred by the federal government to investigate a criminal matter? Not to my knowledge. Is the RCMP free from any influence or direction by the federal government to lay a criminal charge?

Absolutely.

If the subject matter of an investigation, is the prime minister himself, are you concerned about any government interference or reprisal? No.

The measures that were undertaken pursuant to the scope motion that Mr. brach himself voted for, and that’s with respect to the enforcement measures.

I suggest we listen to Mr. Brock here his line of questioning not sure, but I would imagine that there was a link there.

Miss Lucky? Are you aware that today in the house during question period, the Prime Minister admitted that he did not give himself permission to accept a free vacation from a federal lobbyist competing mission.

I’m gonna have to agree with Mr. Villani to rock unless you have an explanation to provide I don’t think this is relevant to our current study, on the declaration in the state of emergency.

I respectfully disagree. The prime minister as head of government, the Prime Minister was the lead voice in the invocation of the emergencies act. He is now under a cloud of suspicion with respect to the offense of fraud. Fraud is offense of dishonesty. Dishonesty involves the matter of integrity and character.

I would just like us to give Mr. Brock an opportunity to explain things he’s comments or I’ve said are not relevant. He’s trying to make an argument to try to convince us I’m listening but he hasn’t yet caused me to change my mind. I’m gonna let him have this opportunity to continue explain thing. Are you done? Mr. Brock?

I had one final point. Okay. On the issue of integrity and character and honesty, Canadians have a right to know whether or not our head of government has been compromised because of his involvement in this particular matter. And hence, there has been an erosion of trust in the federal government to grow the nation.

I’m sorry, Mr. Brock, but thank you, Mr. Brock. I’m maintaining my decision in that. This question, this line of questioning is not relevant to our debate.